20517 replies to this topic

[Ovion]

Juodas Varnas, on 22 June 2016 - 09:52 AM, said:

Well, getting quads in the game wouldn't THAT much work.
Seriously, most of the required "work" could be even worked around the quirk system.

First and foremost, the IK is coming back, that's a no-issue;
So what's there to do with the quads?
Make them have no torso twisting,
increase the base turning speed a by a f*ckton, bind it to the mouse (basically the mouse instead of turning the torso would turn the entire mech, like if you're holding the button for centering the legs and moving the mouse around)
The only thing that'd require any actual work is implementing side-ways movement, which i really doubt would require that much work anyway.

Not much work?
It'd be at least as much, if not more than the clans.

A different animation structure,
different skeleton,
different movement system,
different crit system,
turret system
different legging system
probably different HUD options
certainly different control options (that would need smart or separate control options in the menu)
That's just off the top of my head, there may well be more.

Edited by Ovion, 22 June 2016 - 10:21 AM.

[Juodas Varnas]

Ovion, on 22 June 2016 - 10:20 AM, said:

Not much work?
It'd be at least as much, if not more than the clans.

A different animation structure,
different skeleton,
different movement system,
different crit system,
turret system
different legging system
probably different HUD options
certainly different control options (that would need smart or separate control options in the menu)
That's just off the top of my head, there may well be more.

Different animation structure? Well, from as far as i know, every single mech has different animations
Different skeleton? Well, again, i'm pretty sure that almost every single mech has a different bloody skeleton
Different crit system? For what bloody reason?
Turret system? Doesn't exist in the current timeline
Different HUD options? Like what? The only different HUD option required is the paper-doll, which is a 5 minute MS paint job.

The only things that even make sense are the fact that they require a different movement system and control options, which aren't THAT different. Like seriously...I mean, I'm pretty sure we already had mechs with no torso twisting, if you guys remember the PTS back in the day, when the Enforcer was bugged and couldn't torso-twist, so that's a non-issue, we already have quirks that increase the turning speed, acceleration, deceleration, etc, so that's a non-issue either.

Seriously, the only issue there is, is the whole sidestrafing shebang and the required control-scheme changes to accommodate that. Which again, aren't THAT extensive.
As i said in like a million earlier posts, just take a look at how Planetside did their tanks. There were normal, tracked tanks with turrets, which basically acted like our bipedal mechs (just with 360 degree turret) and then there were the Magriders, they didn't have turrets (so basically no torso-twisting) but had the ability to move sideways (so basically EXACTLY how a quadruped would act).

[wanderer]

Quads would basically need two more movement button options for "strafe left" and "strafe right". Other than that, the HUD system is actually simpler since a quad only would have one crosshair (torso on bipeds) since it lacks true arms.

Standard quads have no turrets, and indeed 'Mech turrets aren't an option- but you could easily co-opt a turret system in much like the Urbanmech does today. Legging system isn't complex, it's just iterations of the current code, as "destroy location-do X" has been coded in for legs and XL engines alike already

A good chunk of quad coding would also end up vehicle coding as well, so two birds, one stone.

[Pariah Devalis]

Metus regem, on 22 June 2016 - 09:19 AM, said:

And this is?




Looks like it'd make a better barge than an Aerospace fighter...

I like to imagine it that it turns its legs into thruster propelled blades, like a helicopter. With no central blade shaft and freely rotating "wing legs" it would have no need to counter torque and thus no need for a tail rotor.

[Juodas Varnas]

Pariah Devalis, on 22 June 2016 - 10:42 AM, said:

I like to imagine it that it turns its legs into thruster propelled blades, like a helicopter. With no central blade shaft and freely rotating "wing legs" it would have no need to counter torque and thus no need for a tail rotor.

So basically like all of those quadcopter drones nowadays?

[Pariah Devalis]

Juodas Varnas, on 22 June 2016 - 10:47 AM, said:

So basically like all of those quadcopter drones nowadays?

Na. More like a tip jet style helicopter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tip_jet




There is no engine attached to the rotor blades. They are being powered through little H2O2 thrusters on each blade tip. Since no engine is making torque, the only reason for a secondary blade setup is to optimize forward or reverse thrust. Not strictly necessary, but probably a hell of a lot easier to control as opposed to having the entire blade tilt like normal.

Though I suppose main rotor blades with integrated flaps would work. Yes, that exists. No, it isn't common.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 22 June 2016 - 10:55 AM.

[Juodas Varnas]

Pariah Devalis, on 22 June 2016 - 10:51 AM, said:

Na. More like a tip jet style helicopter.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tip_jet

Jesus ******* christ that thing is awesome. Like a helicopter on meth.

[Pariah Devalis]

Juodas Varnas, on 22 June 2016 - 10:54 AM, said:

Jesus ******* christ that thing is awesome. Like a helicopter on meth.

Yes... YES.... Come to the rotary wing darkside..... >_>

[wanderer]

It's worth noting the Scorpion LAM was a complete failure, ended up buried in a Hesperus II bunker, and is only notable as to contributing to fixing the rough-rider problems of the conventional version of the Battlemech.

[Juodas Varnas]

wanderer, on 22 June 2016 - 11:06 AM, said:

was a complete failure

So it's a perfect analogy for myself.

[Virlutris]

Metus regem, on 22 June 2016 - 09:35 AM, said:

Just so you know, I'm mostly sure off the top of my head, that the bulk of the Fire Moth's fire power is arm mounted.

Yes, but I'd wanted to verify whether certain things were hard-locked in certain locations before I postulated about certain other things, for which I required the reference material.

Turns out there's often a hardpoint in the RT, for a missile or energy weapon.

It also turns out that there's no MASC system listed in the TT builds for any variant except the G, so far as I can tell from MechFactory's info.

MASC isn't listed in the MechFactory description pages for any variant other than the G.

When we look at the critslot maps, it's mounted right there in the G's CT, and all other variants have 2 conspicuously empty slots in the CT.

Prime, for instance, has a SRM6 in the RA, SRM4 in the RT, 2 tons of SRMmo, 2cERMLs in the LA (6.5t of kill), and 2 externally-mounted cDHS, to go with its XL200. (edit: XL200 is 7.5t, which accounts for another 0.5t in engine weight, and one more heatsink, so this would have the same armor total as an Ovion-Locust-theory armor-optimized Locust)

I dunno where we'd even cram a MASC in there without stripping even more armor.

Assuming I'm not missing something obvious, it appears that Sarna's written somewhat ambiguously (refers to its speed when mounting it on the chassis), and that MASC may not be locked to the chassis, or even present on any tech-compliant variants.

Please check my reading here, specifically for the TT references.

If I'm not wrong, it means we're hand-waving about keeping the Fire Moth out because of 1) a non-locked system, on 2) a very late-dated variant whose weapons aren't tech-compliant to begin with.

If I am wrong, I'll end up with a lesson in using TT reference materials from Battletech veterans. I'm good with being wrong if I get to learn something. I don't want to be wrong and unchecked.

Edited by Virlutris, 22 June 2016 - 12:41 PM.

[Ovion]

Juodas Varnas, on 22 June 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

Different animation structure? Well, from as far as i know, every single mech has different animations

Animation structure, not animations.
Everything has different animations, but it's ultimately all variations on 2-4 different templates.
It's all Bipedal, then there's a few variants each of standard and chicken walker.
These templates will have a lot of code already associated with them, to create 'appropriate' motion animations, that will just need tweaking to new mechs.

Juodas Varnas, on 22 June 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

Different skeleton? Well, again, i'm pretty sure that almost every single mech has a different bloody skeleton

Nope.
Each mech will use one of a few Bipedal Skeleton templates.
These templates are what the animation templates will 'hook on to', and form the 'structure' of the mech.
It will determine how Inverse Kinematics work too.
Each mech will only need some tweaks - and there are mechs that straight-copy this aspect.

Juodas Varnas, on 22 June 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

Different crit system? For what bloody reason?

4 legs, no arms.
Rather than using the base crit system that is the same for every mech in the game, it will need a new template, that diverges from the existing system.
By crits, I mean slots, positioning, places on the mech if it wasn't clear.

Juodas Varnas, on 22 June 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

Turret system? Doesn't exist in the current timeline

K, but we're going to move ahead at some point, and so far NO mech has a fixed turning, they would quite probably add turret / turning to the quads.
But even if they don't, that cuts off a lot of possible quads, and there's so very few already.

Juodas Varnas, on 22 June 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

Different HUD options? Like what? The only different HUD option required is the paper-doll, which is a 5 minute MS paint job.

You really have no understanding of what it needs...
You'd need multiple graphics and code just for the paper doll.
You'd likely need different turning / position icons on the HUD due to the different method of motion.

Juodas Varnas, on 22 June 2016 - 10:30 AM, said:

The only things that even make sense are the fact that they require a different movement system and control options, which aren't THAT different. Like seriously...I mean, I'm pretty sure we already had mechs with no torso twisting, if you guys remember the PTS back in the day, when the Enforcer was bugged and couldn't torso-twist, so that's a non-issue, we already have quirks that increase the turning speed, acceleration, deceleration, etc, so that's a non-issue either.

Seriously, the only issue there is, is the whole sidestrafing shebang and the required control-scheme changes to accommodate that. Which again, aren't THAT extensive.
As i said in like a million earlier posts, just take a look at how Planetside did their tanks. There were normal, tracked tanks with turrets, which basically acted like our bipedal mechs (just with 360 degree turret) and then there were the Magriders, they didn't have turrets (so basically no torso-twisting) but had the ability to move sideways (so basically EXACTLY how a quadruped would act).

A bug is not a feature.

You've got to understand limitation of the engine.

And consider the differences between Clans and IS mechanically, ('simply' mountable limbs) took 6-12 months.

Now with clans, there was a huge following, a lot of sales, and LOTS of mechs to release, resulting in a large and continuous payoff.

We're talking at least as much work as the Clans, for a fraction of the payoff, with minimal longevity.

You claim it's simple, but it's not.

[Metus regem]

Virlutris, on 22 June 2016 - 12:34 PM, said:

Yes, but I'd wanted to verify whether certain things were hard-locked in certain locations before I postulated about certain other things, for which I required the reference material.

Turns out there's often a hardpoint in the RT, for a missile or energy weapon.

It also turns out that there's no MASC system listed in the TT builds for any variant except the G, so far as I can tell from MechFactory's info.

MASC isn't listed in the MechFactory description pages for any variant other than the G.

When we look at the critslot maps, it's mounted right there in the G's CT, and all other variants have 2 conspicuously empty slots in the CT.

Prime, for instance, has a SRM6 in the RA, SRM4 in the RT, 2 tons of SRMmo, 2cERMLs in the LA (6.5t of kill), and 2 externally-mounted cDHS, to go with its XL200.

I dunno where we'd even cram a MASC in there without stripping even more armor.

Assuming I'm not missing something obvious, it appears that Sarna's written somewhat ambiguously (refers to its speed when mounting it on the chassis), and that MASC may not be locked to the chassis, or even present on any tech-compliant variants.

Please check my reading here, specifically for the TT references.

If I'm not wrong, it means we're hand-waving about keeping the Fire Moth out because of 1) a non-locked system, on 2) a very late-dated variant whose weapons aren't tech-compliant to begin with.

If I am wrong, I'll end up with a lesson in using TT reference materials from Battletech veterans. I'm good with being wrong if I get to learn something. I don't want to be wrong and unchecked.

If you use the PDF record sheet, rather than the load out sheet in the app, it shows M.A.S.C. in slot 6 in the lower CT (4-6) on the Fire Moth, on all variants.

The App's equipment load out is often questionable, as I have found many discrepancies between Omni-mech variants of the same base chassis, but when I open the PDF record sheet for it, also found in the app under the "Overview" section when looking at a mech, it will give you the option to down load the PDF record sheet, and go from there.

Edited by Metus regem, 22 June 2016 - 12:47 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Virlutris, on 22 June 2016 - 12:34 PM, said:

snip

Fire Moth does indeed have a CT mounted MASC. 1 crit slot. I'd link a mechlab image of it, from megameklab, but imgur is down for me right now.

Ovion, on 22 June 2016 - 12:34 PM, said:

Double-snip

Actually, the game already comes with the necessary functionality. Cryengine was released with Crysis. Crysis is a FPS. Quadrupeds can sidestep. Standard WSAD movement shooters allow your player to move forward, backward, or strafe, all at the same time. Simply limit the vertical torso twist pitch, turn the mouse torso twist into mech yaw (again, just like in an FPS), and turn the leg rotation keys into the sidestep commands. Done.

I mean, if anything, it's just a relatively slight modification of the original code in the game engine. At least compared to the insanity they must have done to get legs with a turret torso mechanic to work in engine.

[Virlutris]

Metus regem, on 22 June 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

If you use the PDF record sheet, rather than the load out sheet in the app, it shows M.A.S.C. in slot 6 in the lower CT (4-6) on the Fire Moth, on all variants.

The App's equipment load out is often questionable, as I have found many discrepancies between Omni-mech variants of the same base chassis, but when I open the PDF record sheet for it, also found in the app under the "Overview" section when looking at a mech, it will give you the option to down load the PDF record sheet, and go from there.

Pariah Devalis, on 22 June 2016 - 12:47 PM, said:

Fire Moth does indeed have a CT mounted MASC. 1 crit slot. I'd link a mechlab image of it, from megameklab, but imgur is down for me right now.

Perfect! Thanks

That's exactly the kind of thing I wanted to verify.

It also confirms for me that if PGI elected to drop the MASC as an unuseable piece of equipment on this specific mech, they could trade it for an unlocked cDHS in the CT.

It would be just like swapping the HMN-Prime's A-Pods for a cDHS in the ST. Can't use them game (MWO doesn't have infantry or speeds over 172) don't bother building them in.

That's a well-ground axe though, so I'm gonna leave it hanging in the shed.

#Freethefiremoth

Edited by Virlutris, 22 June 2016 - 12:57 PM.

[Pariah Devalis]

Virlutris, on 22 June 2016 - 12:56 PM, said:

Perfect! Thanks

That's exactly the kind of thing I wanted to verify.

It also confirms for me that if PGI elected to drop the MASC as an unuseable piece of equipment on this specific mech, they could trade it for an unlocked cDHS in the CT.

It would be just like swapping the HMN-Prime's A-Pods for a cDHS in the ST. Can't use them game (MWO doesn't have infantry or speeds over 172) don't bother building them in.

That's a well-ground axe though, so I'm gonna leave it hanging in the shed.

#Freethefiremoth

The mech is under-armored, too. Alternatively, I'd say leave the crit open, and give it 1 more ton of armor. Still 1 ton short of max, but it improves the durability of the otherwise stock loadout.

[Virlutris]

Pariah Devalis, on 22 June 2016 - 01:04 PM, said:

The mech is under-armored, too. Alternatively, I'd say leave the crit open, and give it 1 more ton of armor. Still 1 ton short of max, but it improves the durability of the otherwise stock loadout.

That's actually my other option (and the one I've mentioned most often when I bring this up), but lately I think the MASC-for-DHS trade makes it more obvious what's going on with the "missing" equipment. There's nothing else in the CT anyway, right?

So long as it's unlocked, I can always rip it off of there and armor up the little speed demon however I like. Naturally, the inverse would also be true (though a bit on the bold side).

If MASC is ever introduced successfully (edit: for Fire Moth speeds), I think it would get brute-force patched in like when they hardwired the KFX-S and TBR-S JJs after Wave I. A lot of folk's Fire Moths would have invalid builds until they got them adjusted, but it'd be hardwired forever after.

Until then, I'd prefer it dropped, whether for 1t of armor or a cDHS. This is a reasonable way to get a trolling-speed ClanTech 20-tonner in the game for folks to use. It doesn't have to be crazy good, just give folks the option.

/stoppingnow

Edited by Virlutris, 22 June 2016 - 01:23 PM.

[CK16]

Fire Moth and Fire Falcon Clan Light package for $30? (And $15 steps)

Stinger and Wasp as IS Light package for $30? (and 15 steps?)

[Pariah Devalis]

CK16, on 22 June 2016 - 01:24 PM, said:

Fire Moth and Fire Falcon Clan Light package for $30? (And $15 steps)

Stinger and Wasp as IS Light package for $30? (and 15 steps?)

All of my yes.

Virlutris, on 22 June 2016 - 01:21 PM, said:

That's actually my other option (and the one I've mentioned most often when I bring this up), but lately I think the MASC-for-DHS trade makes it more obvious what's going on with the "missing" equipment. There's nothing else in the CT anyway, right?

So long as it's unlocked, I can always rip it off of there and armor up the little speed demon however I like. Naturally, the inverse would also be true (though a bit on the bold side).

If MASC is ever introduced successfully (edit: for Fire Moth speeds), I think it would get brute-force patched in like when they hardwired the KFX-S and TBR-S JJs after Wave I. A lot of folk's Fire Moths would have invalid builds until they got them adjusted, but it'd be hardwired forever after.

Until then, I'd prefer it dropped, whether for 1t of armor or a cDHS. This is a reasonable way to get a trolling-speed ClanTech 20-tonner in the game for folks to use. It doesn't have to be crazy good, just give folks the option.

/stoppingnow

Unfortunately, it has one endosteel crit in the CT, as well.

[Virlutris]

I'd kinda like to know if PGI's even open to the double-light pack idea.

I routinely see forumites and redditors mention it, but I don't recall anyone from PGI ever even addressing the idea.

I've been wondering how they're going to introduce lights from here on out, given the way they've worked the standalone packs.

If they actually ran with thendouble-light idea on the Stinger and Wasp, how would we get the Valkyrie into a double?

What if we found another 30-tonner, and did 2 packages? Each would have an IS 30-tonner and an IS 20-tonner. Any good IS 30t candidates for that?

I'm not convinced yet they'd be down for double the dev cost on a less-popular pack at similar pricing (albeit with more add-ons because 2x heroes/reinforcements). I'd love to get an official comment one way or the other. Maybe I'll go fishing on Twitter.